GeForce 9800M GTX vs Radeon RX 570
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 570 with GeForce 9800M GTX, including specs and performance data.
RX 570 outperforms 9800M GTX by a whopping 1436% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 307 | 1067 |
| Place by popularity | 22 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.59 | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 10.42 | 1.09 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | G92 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 15 July 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $169 | $328.50 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 570 has 25883% better value for money than 9800M GTX.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 112 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 112 |
| Core clock speed | 1168 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1244 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 159.2 | 28.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.095 TFLOPS | 0.28 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 420 |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 83
+1560%
| 5−6
−1560%
|
| 1440p | 48
+1500%
| 3−4
−1500%
|
| 4K | 30
+2900%
| 1−2
−2900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.04
+3127%
| 65.70
−3127%
|
| 1440p | 3.52
+3010%
| 109.50
−3010%
|
| 4K | 5.63
+5731%
| 328.50
−5731%
|
- RX 570 has 3127% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 570 has 3010% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 570 has 5731% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Elden Ring | 55−60 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| Metro Exodus | 76
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+617%
|
6−7
−617%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+10100%
|
1−2
−10100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 49 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
| Fortnite | 102
+1940%
|
5−6
−1940%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 73
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 51
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+862%
|
12−14
−862%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+617%
|
6−7
−617%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+700%
|
7−8
−700%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
+742%
|
24−27
−742%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 58
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+530%
|
10−11
−530%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+2257%
|
7−8
−2257%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 120−130
+1967%
|
6−7
−1967%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 48
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+667%
|
6−7
−667%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+1700%
|
3−4
−1700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
This is how RX 570 and 9800M GTX compete in popular games:
- RX 570 is 1560% faster in 1080p
- RX 570 is 1500% faster in 1440p
- RX 570 is 2900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 570 is 10100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 570 surpassed 9800M GTX in all 39 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.12 | 1.18 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 15 July 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
RX 570 has a 1435.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
9800M GTX, on the other hand, has 60% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 570 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTX in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 570 is a desktop card while GeForce 9800M GTX is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
